Okay wow here we go I guess...
https://twitter.com/KatieHill4CA/status/1357138420045254656
Speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply because it is false.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St…
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St…
There is no “lie” exception to the First Amendment
https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1350903614143778817?s=20
There is no “dangerous information” or “materials that do grave harm” exception, though some revenge porn laws have been upheld.
For example, the MN Supreme Court recently upheld the MN revenge porn law:
courthousenews.com/wp-content/upl…
For example, the MN Supreme Court recently upheld the MN revenge porn law:
courthousenews.com/wp-content/upl…
But this type of law has to be very narrow and meet a very stringent test to be constitutional. It can’t just prohibit “dangerous information” or “materials that do grave harm”
For speech to lose protection as incitement, it must be intended to and likely to incite *imminent* lawless action. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenbu…
Speech merely advocating illegal action at some indefinite future time does not meet this test. mtsu.edu/first-amendmen…
Speech merely advocating illegal action at some indefinite future time does not meet this test. mtsu.edu/first-amendmen…
All in all, it’s more nuanced and more free than originally suggested. I tried to provide links for anyone interesting in reading more on any of those topics.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
